IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v51y2022i4s0048733321002596.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model

Author

Listed:
  • Feliciani, Thomas
  • Morreau, Michael
  • Luo, Junwen
  • Lucas, Pablo
  • Shankar, Kalpana

Abstract

To explore how factors relating to grades and grading affect the correctness of choices that grant-review panels make among submitted proposals. To identify interventions in panel design that may be expected to increase the correctness of choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Feliciani, Thomas & Morreau, Michael & Luo, Junwen & Lucas, Pablo & Shankar, Kalpana, 2022. "Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:51:y:2022:i:4:s0048733321002596
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104467
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733321002596
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104467?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hendy Abdoul & Christophe Perrey & Philippe Amiel & Florence Tubach & Serge Gottot & Isabelle Durand-Zaleski & Corinne Alberti, 2012. "Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Alexander T. Nicolai & Stanislaw Schmal & Charlotte L. Schuster, 2015. "Interrater Reliability of the Peer Review Process in Management Journals," Springer Books, in: Isabell M. Welpe & Jutta Wollersheim & Stefanie Ringelhan & Margit Osterloh (ed.), Incentives and Performance, edition 127, pages 107-119, Springer.
    3. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, October.
    4. Michael Obrecht & Karl Tibelius & Guy D'Aloisio, 2007. "Examining the value added by committee discussion in the review of applications for research awards," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 79-91, June.
    5. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2010. "A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(12), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Michael L Callaham & John Tercier, 2007. "The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, January.
    7. David V. Budescu & Eva Chen, 2015. "Identifying Expertise to Extract the Wisdom of Crowds," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(2), pages 267-280, February.
    8. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    9. Paul J Roebber & David M Schultz, 2011. "Peer Review, Program Officers and Science Funding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-6, April.
    10. Loes C M Bertens & Berna D L Broekhuizen & Christiana A Naaktgeboren & Frans H Rutten & Arno W Hoes & Yvonne van Mourik & Karel G M Moons & Johannes B Reitsma, 2013. "Use of Expert Panels to Define the Reference Standard in Diagnostic Research: A Systematic Review of Published Methods and Reporting," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, October.
    11. David Gurwitz & Elena Milanesi & Thomas Koenig, 2014. "Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-6, December.
    12. Flaminio Squazzoni & Petra Ahrweiler & Tiago Barros & Federico Bianchi & Aliaksandr Birukou & Harry J. J. Blom & Giangiacomo Bravo & Stephen Cowley & Virginia Dignum & Pierpaolo Dondio & Francisco Gri, 2020. "Unlock ways to share data on peer review," Nature, Nature, vol. 578(7796), pages 512-514, February.
    13. Petra Ahrweiler & Michel Schilperoord & Andreas Pyka & Nigel Gilbert, 2015. "Modelling Research Policy: Ex-Ante Evaluation of Complex Policy Instruments," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(4), pages 1-5.
    14. S. Thurner & R. Hanel, 2011. "Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 84(4), pages 707-711, December.
    15. Aidan Lyon & Michael Morreau, 2018. "The wisdom of collective grading and the effects of epistemic and semantic diversity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(1), pages 99-116, July.
    16. Flaminio Squazzoni & Claudio Gandelli, 2013. "Opening the Black-Box of Peer Review: An Agent-Based Model of Scientist Behaviour," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 16(2), pages 1-3.
    17. Michael Mastrandrea & Katharine Mach & Gian-Kasper Plattner & Ottmar Edenhofer & Thomas Stocker & Christopher Field & Kristie Ebi & Patrick Matschoss, 2011. "The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 675-691, October.
    18. Elizabeth L. Pier & Markus Brauer & Amarette Filut & Anna Kaatz & Joshua Raclaw & Mitchell J. Nathan & Cecilia E. Ford & Molly Carnes, 2018. "Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(12), pages 2952-2957, March.
    19. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    20. Jose, Victor Richmond R. & Winkler, Robert L., 2008. "Simple robust averages of forecasts: Some empirical results," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 163-169.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, October.
    2. Richard R Snell, 2015. "Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Jens Jirschitzka & Aileen Oeberst & Richard Göllner & Ulrike Cress, 2017. "Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1059-1092, November.
    4. Sven E. Hug & Mirjam Aeschbach, 2020. "Criteria for assessing grant applications: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, December.
    5. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2021. "The interplay between the reviewer’s incentives and the journal’s quality standard," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3041-3061, April.
    6. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    7. Seeber, Marco & Alon, Ilan & Pina, David G. & Piro, Fredrik Niclas & Seeber, Michele, 2022. "Predictors of applying for and winning an ERC Proof-of-Concept grant: An automated machine learning model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    8. Vincent Chandler, 2019. "Identifying emerging scholars: seeing through the crystal ball of scholarship selection committees," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 39-56, July.
    9. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2020. "The author–reviewer game," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2409-2431, September.
    10. Guy Madison & Knut Sundell, 2022. "Numbers of publications and citations for researchers in fields pertinent to the social services: a comparison of peer-reviewed journal publications across six disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 6029-6046, October.
    11. Bravo, Giangiacomo & Farjam, Mike & Grimaldo Moreno, Francisco & Birukou, Aliaksandr & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2018. "Hidden connections: Network effects on editorial decisions in four computer science journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 101-112.
    12. Bradford Demarest & Guo Freeman & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2014. "The reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 717-735, October.
    13. ederico Bianchi & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2022. "Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review [Reviewing Peer Review]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 791-800.
    14. Cruz-Castro, Laura & Sanz-Menendez, Luis, 2021. "What should be rewarded? Gender and evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    15. Marco Seeber & Alberto Bacchelli, 2017. "Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 567-585, October.
    16. Rüdiger Mutz & Tobias Wolbring & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2017. "The effect of the “very important paper” (VIP) designation in Angewandte Chemie International Edition on citation impact: A propensity score matching analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(9), pages 2139-2153, September.
    17. Thomas Feliciani & Ramanathan Moorthy & Pablo Lucas & Kalpana Shankar, 2020. "Grade Language Heterogeneity in Simulation Models of Peer Review," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 23(3), pages 1-8.
    18. Rebecca Abma-Schouten & Joey Gijbels & Wendy Reijmerink & Ingeborg Meijer, 2023. "Evaluation of research proposals by peer review panels: broader panels for broader assessments?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 619-632.
    19. John Jerrim, 2019. "Peer-review of grant proposals. An analysis of Economic and Social Research Council grant applications," DoQSS Working Papers 19-05, Quantitative Social Science - UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.
    20. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt & Anna Strauss, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:51:y:2022:i:4:s0048733321002596. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.